Comments

  1. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    I still don’t see the wide appeal for what’s basically a (staged) teen snuff-film. Twelve to eighteen-year-old characters ordered and willing to kill eachother for politics….and for the in-film and megaplex theater audience’s amusement? ….It’s a cockfight….with children.

    If the characters were of military-age I’d feel differently; but 12- and 13-year-olds?

  2. Joe says

    Um, that’s what makes this an intriguing idea. And it’s not killing for politics; it’s killing for survival.

    It’s fine to have an opinion, but not knowing the story only shows how ill-informed it is.

  3. CHRISTOPHER says

    @Ted B: Have you heard of Battle Royale? Because that’s a cult favorite, and much more bloody (at least, senselessly) than Hunger Games.

    @Winston: yeah, but have you read Hunger Games? Because the story behind the actual Games is much deeper and the characterization much more relatable than Battle Royale.

  4. says

    Yes, though to be honest I couldn’t scrounge up enough interest to finish reading Catching Fire. Half the book read like a teen love story without vampires. Have you read Battle Royale? Now THAT was worthy of sitting right next to Lord of the Flies.

  5. jaragon says

    I’m so tired of this movie that I refuse to see it- the plot seems to be mash up of “The Most Dangerous Game”- “Logan’s Run” and the cast of “High School Musical”

  6. bierce says

    A girl torn between two hunky potential boyfriends, who seem equally infatuated with her despite her sullenness? Vicious combat between bloodthirsty teens who kill with impunity? Remind you of anything?

Leave A Reply